For more than two years many of us in general aviation have been concerned about the Clinton Administration proposal to turn the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic control system into a quasi-government corporation — a "post office of the sky," so to speak. To many of us, this transition doesn't appear to be the way to solve the FAA's problems.
As part of the proposal to form the United States Air Traffic Services Corporation (USATS), Congress would surrender control of the FAA to an airline-dominated board of directors, and all categories of users would pay fees for using the system.
For the past 45 days, AOPA Legislative Action has been busier than usual on Capitol Hill as the 104th Congress tackles the task of balancing the budget by the year 2002 and the issue of FAA reform. There is both good news and bad news regarding the ill-conceived White House plan to corporatize ATC.
First, the idea to establish USATS appears to be dead, in large measure because of the hard work done by your association since the concept was proposed in 1992. The bad news, however, is that direct user fees for many FAA services are contained in several bills now under review in both houses of Congress. Each bill attempts to address the critical issue of FAA reform through various methods of streamlining personnel and procurement procedures.
On the Senate side, the Air Traffic Management System Performance Act of 1995 (S.1239), introduced in mid- September by senators John McCain (R-AZ), Wendell Ford (D- KY), and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), contains numerous troubling concepts. The bill requires that, within six months after enactment, the FAA set up a user fee system for certification and licensing services. Fees set under the system become effective 45 days after they are submitted unless Congress acts to disapprove them. The FAA would also develop ATC fees for overflights and business jets. The FAA and the Department of Defense would negotiate a cost reimbursement agreement for ATC services provided to DOD.
Fees would be assessed for various FAA services. Inspectors signing off avionics installations, supplemental type certificates, or even new aircraft certifications, for example, could charge users on an hourly basis. Even homebuilders should be concerned about the amount that the FAA might charge to sign off a kitbuilt aircraft.
Other charges could include additional costs for a pilot certificate or rating. A new annual fee might be charged to medical examiners. Similar fees might be levied against designated examiners and authorized FAA repair stations.
What's even worse, the involvement of Congress would be limited to disapproving the fees — a negative option. Imagine the administrator's saying to Congress that these fees are necessary to the safe operation of our air transportation system, and then Congress' voting them down. No way.
Also, the FAA would have to negotiate fees with the Department of Defense for providing services to military aircraft. That's a negotiating session I surely would like to attend. No pun intended, Administrator David Hinson, but this bill sets up what I would call a "David and Goliath" situation, pitting the relatively small and weak FAA against the strength of the Pentagon.
It gets worse. The FAA would be required to develop a fee structure for ATC services within one year. The fees would become effective unless Congress rejects them. Don't be misled. Fees are just another form of taxation and, on the whole, S.1239 would be the largest tax increase ever placed on general aviation — just at a time when the industry is beginning to rebound.
Except for the issue of user fees, the bill does offer excellent remedies for some of the FAA's current problems. It would waive many federal laws that restrict personnel and procurement reform and establish a 15-member advisory council comprised of all aviation segments.
AOPA testified in the Senate against the onerous recommendations at the first of three hearings on FAA reform held so far. The argument for additional taxes hinges on the FAA's forecast $59-billion operating budget through 2002. Congress is finalizing an appropriation of only $47 billion for that period. We sincerely question the $12 billion shortfall and the need for $59 billion to operate the agency.
At a recent GA industry meeting with the FAA administrator, AOPA presented examples of program savings that would amount to almost $4 billion over the next seven years. In addition, little credit is taken for the savings that undoubtedly will come from a faster transition to GPS.
AOPA strongly recommends that the agency be reformed first. Then, if more financing is needed, increase the exisiting aviation fuel taxes and airline passenger ticket taxes. I was shocked (and also pleased) that the airlines supported the concept of reform before finance at the most recent Senate hearing.
AOPA Legislative Action sent Western Union letters to pilots in the 18 states whose senators comprise the full Commerce Committee, where this bill currently resides. At this writing we have received copies of more than 2,500 letters to committee members, asking that they oppose this legislation. The writers instead ask their legislators to support the bill of Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK), S.928, that provides needed FAA reform without creating a new tax structure.
Meanwhile, the FAA Revitalization Act of 1995 (H.R.2276), an alternative bill in the House of Representatives, has bipartisan support and addresses the issue of FAA reform in a sound and fiscally responsible manner. The bill, developed by representatives John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) and James Lightfoot (R-IA), contains many of the points AOPA offered to Congress in our five-point "Proposal for Reform of the FAA" submitted earlier this year.
Next month, this column will address the positive concepts in H.R.2276. I will update you on the critical dialogue taking place in Washington, D.C., that has the potential of permanently damaging the safety and efficiency of the U.S. air transportation system.
Related Articles
